7 ms·

The shadow ban isn’t even the scariest part of the thread! The Department of Homeland Security confronted him about a video about police brutality: > A few mon

The shadow ban isn’t even the scariest part of the thread! The Department of Homeland Security confronted him about a video about police brutality: > A few months ago I uploaded a video about police brutality. It showed explicit acts of violence by the police, and it was understandably age-gated. The video was appropriate only for older audiences, but did not break any of YouTube's terms and conditions. > That video earned me a visit from the DHS, who asked me about "Anti-American sentiment" in my videos. That was the first time I realized, wow, I guess people really are monitoring what we say and are willing to try to intimidate us, even if what we say is objectively true. It’s “anti-American” to say that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws should not commit violence against us.

rubyist5eva 6y ago
Absolutely ridiculous - do Americans even know why the country was even founded anymore?
- dmd 6y ago
  .
  - mirekrusin 6y ago
    - knock knock - who's there? - homeland security
- chuckSu 6y ago
  I don’t think most care
- bladegash 6y ago
  Do you? Not to over simplify things, but freedom, liberty, and equal treatment were pretty much empty words and applied only to white American men (see: treatment of Native Americans, the Mexican-American war, slaves, and women). Federalists were very clear in their commentary and design of the Constitution that they were in favor of broad federal powers and feared populism and direct democracy. The Bill of Rights was not in the original drafts of the Constitution and likely would not have existed had it not been for the Anti-Federalists. Not to mention gems such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, Three-Fifths Compromise, Manifest Destiny, etc. Many of the tensions and fears that existed back then, are some of the same ones we are dealing with now. Edit: Original comment suggested Patrick Henry was against the Bill of Rights - which was inaccurate and a big error on my part. Apologies for the misleading quote!
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    People like yourself that constantly bring up the wrongs of the past and constantly remind people that things were less than perfect in the past constantly don't seem to understand that: * Much like many things society progresses, generally in the western world that progression has tended towards greater liberty (in most respects) of its citizens e.g. Tom Holland (a documentary film maker in the UK) argues the separation of church and state can be traced back to the Bible and it been a steady progression to secularism from there (whether that is valid or not I have no idea). * You cannot judge people of the past by the standards of today. Someone that would have been seen as progressive back then would be seen as some sort of ultra-traditionalist far-right fridge thinker. You have to judge them by the standards of the time. I am sure in 200-300 years people will see us as backwards, poorly educated and barbaric. I don't know the history of the events or the characters that led to American indepedence (I am not an American) but what I do find when people feel the need to character assasinate important figures of the past is that they do massively over simplify events and the people involved.
    - Ntrails 6y ago
      Gp was refuting a claim that the American State was formed on an "anti state oppression" platform. He is not claiming the people were bad, but that their ideals were not what was being claimed of them
    - benrbray 6y ago
      To be fair, the person you're responding to only brought up this viewpoint in response to another poster who seems to hold the view that the founding fathers were just as progressive as we are today.
      - forest_dweller 6y ago
        I've already addressed why that is in all likelihood incorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245794
    - blunte 6y ago
- Fluid_Mechanics 6y ago
  Humans will do whatever makes them feel good. The rest doesn’t matter.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Practically speaking the US was founded because a political elite minority, concentrated in certain geographic regions, pushed war on a mostly indifferent population.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  it could be argued it was because people didn't like to pay taxes.
  - itronitron 6y ago
    Specifically, American colonists wanted representation in the the British Parliament and because they didn't have that they considered taxes a denial of their rights as Englishmen.
adnzzzzZ 6y ago
This happens all the time, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
booleandilemma 6y ago
I’m upvoting your comment. I hope I don’t get a visit from the secret police.
commentrix 6y ago
But I think it's "anti-American" to deliberately editorialize and misrepresent the police as illegally violent and biased, when the facts are otherwise: - black people kill black people far more than police or white people kill black people, but the dominant story about it is, police violence is at fault - police have to deal with 1000s of violent encounters with unstable and dangerous individuals every week, and aside from security guards, they're the only officers in civilian society authorized to use physical force, and each year dozens of uniformed officers are killed[0] and thousands are violently assaulted[1], but again, the dominant propaganda is the fake story about the "plague of police violence" against "poor innocent victims" If some officers murdered people, and that's enough to produce this persistent propaganda about "police brutality", then the dozens of murders and thousands of assaults by people against police should be enough to create a greater story about "anti-police brutality" -- but it's not. The "police brutality" narrative is a lie that's trying to be born as truth through endless repetition, spread by corrupt and irresponsible media. It's obviously propaganda and a divisive tactic, but people lap it up. It's very, very sad, that it is used as an outlet for people, who twistedly see it as a way to vent their unrelated frustrations, with someone to incorrectly blame, a "cause" to disguise their anger about their other problems. The same tactics are used to recruit and radicalize terrorists. One of the saddest thing's about these myths is how they are being used to whip up anti police sentiment, which funnels into anti police violence, which results in really bad outcomes for the perpetrators, who probably were otherwise OK people, but got deluded by this propaganda into making mistakes that ruined their lives, and the lives of others. But, go on, keep spreading this delusion and apologizing for violence against police, like idiots, manipulated by forces you don't understand. [0]: https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/officers/national/united-states/leoka https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/officers/national/u... [1]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-assaulted https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-assaulte...
- greenie_beans 6y ago
  Yikes, welcome to hacker news?
- Technically 6y ago
  "Illegally violent" police isn't meaningful. They're legally violent; that's the problem. Take your racism elsewhere, please. You're regurgitating state propaganda for no conversational benefit.
peteretep 6y ago
> That video earned me a visit from the DHS I wasn’t there, so I’ve no idea if that really happened, but the statement definitely makes his videos more exciting and click worthy :eye-roll:
stiray 6y ago
Well I have encountered this article a while ago - "How CIA made Google": https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... From this perspective, youtube blocking CIA criticizing video seems like something completely normal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- est31 6y ago
  It's not normal, even if there is such a connection. If there is such, it's way more powerful if it's kept in secret. In which instance does the CIA benefit more? If people believe that GAFAM are a front of the CIA and thus enemies avoid GAFAM products? Or if enemies of the CIA use GAFAM products, believing that data collection is only done to improve ads?
leftyted 6y ago
The DHS was established in the panic following 9/11. If they're knocking on doors trying to intimidate dissidents, it seems clear that it has outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any) and should be dismantled. You'd think that would be something small-government republicans progressive democrats could agree on...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  You would think. But both sides also feel like they have to look strong on security, or the other side is going to beat them up in the next election.
freeflight 6y ago
I mean, it's not really that surprising, the DHS is an organization that openly calls for Americans to snitch on each other, it's even a registered trademark: "If You See Something, Say Something®" [0] Also not only reserved to the DHS. There have also been examples of people being under surveillance by the FBI, and ultimately going to jail, over Facebook posts [1] [0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-...
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> It’s “anti-American” to say that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws should not commit violence against us. No. Everybody knows that, everybody agrees with that, and you can say it. But it's "anti-American" to point out that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws do commit unreasonably unnecessary violence against us.

rubyist5eva 6y ago

Absolutely ridiculous - do Americans even know why the country was even founded anymore?

dmd 6y ago
.
- mirekrusin 6y ago
  - knock knock - who's there? - homeland security
chuckSu 6y ago
I don’t think most care
bladegash 6y ago
Do you? Not to over simplify things, but freedom, liberty, and equal treatment were pretty much empty words and applied only to white American men (see: treatment of Native Americans, the Mexican-American war, slaves, and women). Federalists were very clear in their commentary and design of the Constitution that they were in favor of broad federal powers and feared populism and direct democracy. The Bill of Rights was not in the original drafts of the Constitution and likely would not have existed had it not been for the Anti-Federalists. Not to mention gems such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, Three-Fifths Compromise, Manifest Destiny, etc. Many of the tensions and fears that existed back then, are some of the same ones we are dealing with now. Edit: Original comment suggested Patrick Henry was against the Bill of Rights - which was inaccurate and a big error on my part. Apologies for the misleading quote!
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  People like yourself that constantly bring up the wrongs of the past and constantly remind people that things were less than perfect in the past constantly don't seem to understand that: * Much like many things society progresses, generally in the western world that progression has tended towards greater liberty (in most respects) of its citizens e.g. Tom Holland (a documentary film maker in the UK) argues the separation of church and state can be traced back to the Bible and it been a steady progression to secularism from there (whether that is valid or not I have no idea). * You cannot judge people of the past by the standards of today. Someone that would have been seen as progressive back then would be seen as some sort of ultra-traditionalist far-right fridge thinker. You have to judge them by the standards of the time. I am sure in 200-300 years people will see us as backwards, poorly educated and barbaric. I don't know the history of the events or the characters that led to American indepedence (I am not an American) but what I do find when people feel the need to character assasinate important figures of the past is that they do massively over simplify events and the people involved.
  - Ntrails 6y ago
    Gp was refuting a claim that the American State was formed on an "anti state oppression" platform. He is not claiming the people were bad, but that their ideals were not what was being claimed of them
  - benrbray 6y ago
    To be fair, the person you're responding to only brought up this viewpoint in response to another poster who seems to hold the view that the founding fathers were just as progressive as we are today.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      I've already addressed why that is in all likelihood incorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25245794
  - blunte 6y ago
Fluid_Mechanics 6y ago
Humans will do whatever makes them feel good. The rest doesn’t matter.
marcinzm 6y ago
Practically speaking the US was founded because a political elite minority, concentrated in certain geographic regions, pushed war on a mostly indifferent population.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
it could be argued it was because people didn't like to pay taxes.
- itronitron 6y ago
  Specifically, American colonists wanted representation in the the British Parliament and because they didn't have that they considered taxes a denial of their rights as Englishmen.

adnzzzzZ 6y ago

This happens all the time, example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

booleandilemma 6y ago

I’m upvoting your comment. I hope I don’t get a visit from the secret police.

commentrix 6y ago

But I think it's "anti-American" to deliberately editorialize and misrepresent the police as illegally violent and biased, when the facts are otherwise: - black people kill black people far more than police or white people kill black people, but the dominant story about it is, police violence is at fault - police have to deal with 1000s of violent encounters with unstable and dangerous individuals every week, and aside from security guards, they're the only officers in civilian society authorized to use physical force, and each year dozens of uniformed officers are killed[0] and thousands are violently assaulted[1], but again, the dominant propaganda is the fake story about the "plague of police violence" against "poor innocent victims" If some officers murdered people, and that's enough to produce this persistent propaganda about "police brutality", then the dozens of murders and thousands of assaults by people against police should be enough to create a greater story about "anti-police brutality" -- but it's not. The "police brutality" narrative is a lie that's trying to be born as truth through endless repetition, spread by corrupt and irresponsible media. It's obviously propaganda and a divisive tactic, but people lap it up. It's very, very sad, that it is used as an outlet for people, who twistedly see it as a way to vent their unrelated frustrations, with someone to incorrectly blame, a "cause" to disguise their anger about their other problems. The same tactics are used to recruit and radicalize terrorists. One of the saddest thing's about these myths is how they are being used to whip up anti police sentiment, which funnels into anti police violence, which results in really bad outcomes for the perpetrators, who probably were otherwise OK people, but got deluded by this propaganda into making mistakes that ruined their lives, and the lives of others. But, go on, keep spreading this delusion and apologizing for violence against police, like idiots, manipulated by forces you don't understand. [0]: https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/officers/national/united-states/leoka https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/officers/national/u... [1]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-assaulted https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/topic-pages/officers-assaulte...

greenie_beans 6y ago
Yikes, welcome to hacker news?
Technically 6y ago
"Illegally violent" police isn't meaningful. They're legally violent; that's the problem. Take your racism elsewhere, please. You're regurgitating state propaganda for no conversational benefit.

peteretep 6y ago

> That video earned me a visit from the DHS I wasn’t there, so I’ve no idea if that really happened, but the statement definitely makes his videos more exciting and click worthy :eye-roll:

stiray 6y ago

Well I have encountered this article a while ago - "How CIA made Google": https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... From this perspective, youtube blocking CIA criticizing video seems like something completely normal.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
est31 6y ago
It's not normal, even if there is such a connection. If there is such, it's way more powerful if it's kept in secret. In which instance does the CIA benefit more? If people believe that GAFAM are a front of the CIA and thus enemies avoid GAFAM products? Or if enemies of the CIA use GAFAM products, believing that data collection is only done to improve ads?

leftyted 6y ago

The DHS was established in the panic following 9/11. If they're knocking on doors trying to intimidate dissidents, it seems clear that it has outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any) and should be dismantled. You'd think that would be something small-government republicans progressive democrats could agree on...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
You would think. But both sides also feel like they have to look strong on security, or the other side is going to beat them up in the next election.

freeflight 6y ago

I mean, it's not really that surprising, the DHS is an organization that openly calls for Americans to snitch on each other, it's even a registered trademark: "If You See Something, Say Something®" [0] Also not only reserved to the DHS. There have also been examples of people being under surveillance by the FBI, and ultimately going to jail, over Facebook posts [1] [0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-interview-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

> It’s “anti-American” to say that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws should not commit violence against us. No. Everybody knows that, everybody agrees with that, and you can say it. But it's "anti-American" to point out that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws do commit unreasonably unnecessary violence against us.